Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The only argument advanced in the writ petition is that during pendency of appeal of petitioner the fair price shop cannot be allotted to a third party.

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner had entered into a contract with respondents for running fair price shop sometimes in 1990 in Gram Panchayat Murara, Block Muftiganj, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur so as to distribute essential commodities to card holders within that area. On the ground of illegalities and irregularities in distribution of essential commodities petitioner’s fair price shop agreement was suspended by Deputy Collector vide order dated 27.12.2013, which was passed in exercise of powers conferred under U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “Order, 2004”).

4. The petitioner preferred Appeal No. 32 of 2014 against aforesaid order of suspension and appeal was pending. In the meantime, Deputy Collector completed his inquiry and after considering petitioner’s reply to show-cause notice dated 27.12.2013 passed a final order dated 4.4.2014 cancelling fair price shop agreement of petitioner. Thereagainst petitioner preferred Appeal No. 52 of 2014, which is also pending. In this appeal petitioner filed an application requesting Appellate Authority that during pendency of appeal, petitioner’s fair price shop should not be allotted to any third person but the application has been rejected by Appellate Authority by impugned order dated 4.7.2014, hence this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner drew my attention to an interim order dated 16.9.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Lucknow in Misc. Bench No. 11977 of 2010, Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, providing that during pendency of appeal third party rights should not be created by appointing another shop dealer. He also drew my attention to another order dated 19.10.2011 passed in Misc. Bench No. 10373 of 2011, Jagannath Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and others, disposing of that writ petition in terms of interim order dated 16.9.2011.

6. It is contended that aforesaid decisions compel the Appellate Authority not to allow third party rights during pendency of appeal and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. It is no doubt true that a Division Bench decision is binding on this Court when I am sitting single. However, what is binding is a precedent laid down in the judgment and not the ultimate order passed as such. A binding precedent is arrived at by the Court when an issue is raised, argued and decided. In the two orders placed before this Court, I do not find that “third party right cannot be created”, was an issue raised, argued and decided. There is no discussion in the judgment and only an operative part of the order which was an interim order initially, relied and followed subsequently in subsequent writ petition which was only disposed of in terms of that interim order.

7. It appears that the Hon’ble Court was not apprised of earlier Division Bench judgment on the subject wherein this issue has been considered and decided long back. I may refer hereat the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 19080 of 2008, Naubat Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 11.4.2008, wherein this very issue was raised but was negatived by giving reasons. The Court said:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the appeal is already pending it is not open to respondents to appoint another person as fair price shop dealer in respect to the area where the petitioner was working as fair price shop dealer.

However, we do not find any force in the submission. The petitioner’s agreement for distribution of essential commodities having been cancelled admittedly, presently he has no right in the matter of distribution of essential commodities of fair price to the public at large. Si